I have seen too much that makes me believe they were idol worshippers who converted and are not Judahites, (actual Jews).

The problem with this is, there is too much evidence against the tribe of Judah actually being "Jews" in the sense that we understand it today (as in, followers of the religion we understand as Judaism today). That is a huge quagmire of a discussion however, and the evidence is flung far and wide. Also, people are generally unwilling to look at that evidence because their own beliefs rely on a specific "truth" of Judaism.

History is written by the victors... How do we know they tell the truth? It's hard to know what is actually true that far back.

History isn't written by the victors, it's written by the publishers. It is the people who make the actual books that write history. Any book that is "popular" even if it is only "popular" among a subset of people (historians e.g.) is popular precisely because the book publishers, and those that control the information (propaganda) made it popular. This is a very important thing to understand when looking into history.

That aside, my investigation suggests that most of what is said in history books is true (where by "true" I mean corroborated by other independent sources and evidence). Now of course "most" is not "all," and I'm not suggesting it is, but "most" is a whole lot. It is the stuff that is left out where the real fuckery is. It is in the books that aren't well known where the most interesting leads are.

Regardless, I agree that knowing what's "true" is impossible in practice. Thus I work strictly on "levels of reasonable doubt." In other words, I think about whether or not a "statement of fact" has enough supporting evidence that I think it is likely true. I then consider what my doubts are, based on all the evidence I can find on it. Are my doubts based on the process of reason? Are they based on fear or other unrelated (or indirectly related) beliefs? From these questions (which get applied with each new piece of evidence) I construct a theory of "what really happened."

It actually works out pretty well. As I get more evidence, my main theory (which I have espoused to some small extent here) gets stronger and stronger. Every piece of evidence I find now fits in perfectly, further corroborating the main hypothesis. That doesn't make it true, but it does put it, for me, beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless and until new evidence comes that would give me a reasonable doubt (doubt based on the process of reason), it remains in that category.

Of course elaborating a theory to other people requires a great deal of effort, because the evidence is not easily shown. While there are a few "smoking guns," most of the evidence is only meaningful in context with other evidence. The whole "evidence chain" requires so much work to elaborate. Also there is good reason to doubt all sources, as you suggest. Thus the actual exposure to the greater reasons I believe my theory is validated takes a great deal of time, effort, and organization.

The beginning of this project of exposure to my investigation can be found here. It doesn't talk about anything like this yet, and even when it does, that exposure will be minimal because I am not trying to show this particular line of reasoning. The cognitive dissonance (from brainwashing) as it relates to "The Jews" is too great, especially among the larger populace, which is the target audience for my report.

I have seen too much that makes me believe they were idol worshippers who converted and are not Judahites, (actual Jews).

The problem with this is, there is too much evidence against the tribe of Judah actually being "Jews" in the sense that we understand it today (as in, followers of the religion we understand as Judaism today). That is a huge quagmire of a discussion however, and the evidence is flung far and wide. Also, people are generally unwilling to look at that evidence because their own beliefs rely on a specific "truth" of Judaism.

History is written by the victors... How do we know they tell the truth? It's hard to know what is actually true that far back.

History isn't written by the victors, it's written by the publishers. It is the people who make the actual books that write history. Any book that is "popular" even if it is only "popular" among a subset of people (historians e.g.) is popular precisely because the book publishers, and those that control the information (propaganda) made it popular. This is a very important thing to understand when looking into history.

That aside, my investigation suggests that most of what is said in history books is true (where by "true" I mean corroborated by other independent sources and evidence). Now of course "most" is not "all," and I'm not suggesting it is, but "most" is a whole lot. It is the stuff that is left out where the real fuckery is. It is in the books that aren't well known where the most interesting leads are.

Regardless, I agree that knowing what's "true" is impossible in practice. Thus I work strictly on "levels of reasonable doubt." In other words, I think about whether or not a "statement of fact" has enough supporting evidence that I think it is likely true. I then consider what my doubts are, based on all the evidence I can find on it. Are my doubts based on the process of reason? Are they based on fear or other unrelated (or indirectly related) beliefs? From these questions (which get applied with each new piece of evidence) I construct a theory of "what really happened."

It actually works out pretty well. As I get more evidence, my main theory (which I have espoused to some small extent here) gets stronger and stronger. Every piece of evidence I find now fits in perfectly, further corroborating the main hypothesis. That doesn't make it true, but it does put it, for me, beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless and until new evidence comes that would give me a reasonable doubt (doubt based on the process of reason), it remains in that category.

Of course elaborating a theory to other people requires a great deal of effort, because the evidence is not easily shown. While there are a few "smoking guns," most of the evidence is only meaningful in context with other evidence. The whole "evidence chain" requires so much work to elaborate. Also there is good reason to doubt all sources, as you suggest. Thus the actual exposure to the greater reasons I believe my theory is validated takes a great deal of time, effort, and organization.

The beginning of this project of exposure to my investigation can be found here. It doesn't talk about anything like this yet, and even when it does, that exposure will be minimal because I am not trying to show this particular line of reasoning. The cognitive dissonance (from brainwashing) is too great, especially among the larger populace, which is the target audience for my report.

I have seen too much that makes me believe they were idol worshippers who converted and are not Judahites, (actual Jews).

The problem with this is, there is too much evidence against the tribe of Judah actually being "Jews" in the sense that we understand it today (as in, followers of the religion we understand as Judaism today). That is a huge quagmire of a discussion however, and the evidence is flung far and wide. Also, people are generally unwilling to look at that evidence because their own beliefs rely on a specific "truth" of Judaism.

History is written by the victors... How do we know they tell the truth? It's hard to know what is actually true that far back.

History isn't written by the victors, it's written by the publishers. It is the people who make the actual books that write history. Any book that is "popular" even if it is only "popular" among a subset of people (historians e.g.) is popular precisely because the book publishers made it popular. This is a very important thing to understand when looking into history.

That aside, my investigation suggests that most of what is said in history books is true (where by "true" I mean corroborated by other independent sources and evidence). Now of course "most" is not "all," and I'm not suggesting it is, but "most" is a whole lot. It is the stuff that is left out where the real fuckery is. It is in the books that aren't well known where the most interesting leads are.

Regardless, I agree that knowing what's "true" is impossible in practice. Thus I work strictly on "levels of reasonable doubt." In other words, I think about whether or not a "statement of fact" has enough supporting evidence that I think it is likely true. I then consider what my doubts are, based on all the evidence I can find on it. Are my doubts based on the process of reason? Are they based on fear or other unrelated (or indirectly related) beliefs? From these questions (which get applied with each new piece of evidence) I construct a theory of "what really happened."

It actually works out pretty well. As I get more evidence, my main theory (which I have espoused to some small extent here) gets stronger and stronger. Every piece of evidence I find now fits in perfectly, further corroborating the main hypothesis. That doesn't make it true, but it does put it, for me, beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless and until new evidence comes that would give me a reasonable doubt (doubt based on the process of reason), it remains in that category.

Of course elaborating a theory to other people requires a great deal of effort, because the evidence is not easily shown. While there are a few "smoking guns," most of the evidence is only meaningful in context with other evidence. The whole "evidence chain" requires so much work to elaborate. Also there is good reason to doubt all sources, as you suggest. Thus the actual exposure to the greater reasons I believe my theory is validated takes a great deal of time, effort, and organization.

The beginning of this project of exposure to my investigation can be found here. It doesn't talk about anything like this yet, and even when it does, that exposure will be minimal because I am not trying to show this particular line of reasoning. The cognitive dissonance (from brainwashing) is too great, especially among the larger populace, which is the target audience for my report.